Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 27 February, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11969
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10988 of 2024
Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko
Counsel for Applicant :- Kaustubh Singh,Purnendu Chakravarty
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 02 of 2024, under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-Kanpur Sector (Vigilance Department) District-U.P. Vigilance Department.
Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He added that the applicant was posted as 'Dealing Clerk' in the department of 'Personnel' and on 19-08-2023, he was transferred to the department of 'Publication' and the demand of illegal gratification is with respect to the department of the 'Personnel' as the matter regarding the grant of A.C.P. pertains to the same.
He argued that the matter with respect to grant of A.C.P. was pending with the office of Additional Municipal Commissioner, Kanpur and thus, there was no occasion to demand illegal gratification by the applicant. He also submits that the case of the applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs State (Government of NCT of Delhi), reported in (2023) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 731. He has referred paragraph nos. 88.1 & 88.7 of the said Judgment, which are reproduced hereinunder :-
"88.1. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Act.
88.7. (g) Insofar as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Sections 13(1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Act."
Referring the aforesaid, he submits that it has specifically been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant is sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988(hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1988'). Further so far as presumption of guilt is concerned, that's not absolute, but, that is subject to rebuttal by the accused.
He further submits that due to some anonymity, the applicant has been hatched in criminal conspiracy and the alleged trap proceedings vitiate in the eyes of law. He also added that the applicant is a public servant and he will not abscond from any proceeding of the trial. He next added that the chargesheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses. He submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 25-08-2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant was the then posted as Dealing Clerk in the department of personnel and he had demanded the illegal gratification. He also submits that the applicant was caught red handed and all the formalities with respect to trap under the Prevention of Corruption Act, have been complied with in it's letter and spirit. He next submits that the applicant being the public servant, is very much responsible for the act and thus, he is not entitled for any relief.
Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant was posted in the 'Department Of Personnel' uptill 19-08-2023 and thereafter, he was transferred to the 'Department Of Publication' in the State Government. The matter of arrest of the applicant is of 24-08-2024 and the demand of illegal gratification is of 22-08-2024 and no date, place and time, with respect to illegal demand is ever shown.
This court has also noticed the fact that since the applicant was posted in the 'Department of Publication' and therefore, prima-face, there seems to be no occasion for demand of illegal gratification by the applicant.
It is also noticed by this court that the chargesheet has been filed and the applicant was posted as public servant and further there is no complaint that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation proceedings. Further the applicant is languishing in jail since 25-08-2024 and he has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.
Let the applicant-Rajesh Kumar Yadav, involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-
(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;
(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;
(3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and
(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.
Order Date :- 27.2.2025
AKS
